61–66 of 66 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's just me but this points to a PDF export. The /edit suffix is getting changed to /export?format=pdf. The "non-clickable" link points to /edit which gives me an HTML version.
I just clicked it in Chrome and Mobile Safari and they both bring me to a regular Google Sheets web page. I tried in incognito mode too and it was the same. What browser are you using?
Open Source Stash seems to be opinionated (for lack of a better word) and there doesn't seem to be a way to submit projects to it in the public (like a pull-request for example where a discussion can be had) but only privately to the maintainer (ironic, for a webpage maintaining a collection of OSS software)? Also, I need to allow countless third-party services (uMatrix puts the count at 51) to even make the website…
they list brave, but not firefox! I take offense to that! :)
See also: https://prism-break.org .
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, the screen behind it features MacOS. Which, needless to say, is also hostile to free software.
It is not, though? That makes no sense.
Anyway, user freedom is the main point of free software and, supposedly, of the original article. In that sense, it's hard to argue that Apple ranks any higher than even MS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is not, though? That makes no sense.
As pointed before, the apple app store is incompatible with GPL. With the notarization system it makes it necessary for developers to at the very least use apple's proprietary toolkit to release their software. The FSF has a big list, I find some of the items a bit exaggerated, but most are legitimate points: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.en.html Anyway, user freedom is the main point of free software…
The app store being incompatible with the GPL is really the choice of the writers of the GPL and those who use it as their license. Other open source licenses are not incompatible with it, it is just the GPL that chose to be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As pointed before, the apple app store is incompatible with GPL. With the notarization system it makes it necessary for developers to at the very least use apple's proprietary toolkit to release their software. The FSF has a big list, I find some of the items a bit exaggerated, but most are legitimate points: https://www.gnu.org/proprietary/malware-apple.en.html Anyway, user freedom is the main point of free software…
You do not need to use the App Store, you can just distribute software yourself. The app store being incompatible with the GPL is really the choice of the writers of the GPL and those who use it as their license. Other open source licenses are not incompatible with it, it is just the GPL that chose to be.
Moreover, you didn't even address the point that Apple makes it increasingly difficult (and sometimes even impossible) to distribute code for their platform without the use of their proprietary SDK. That, of course, is an artificial requirement by Apple, yet again signiling that they are not friendly towards free softwre.
Note that, a hostile environment for free software does not mean that there is no free software or that free software is impossible. If that was the case, I would've used that wording. It's hostile because it makes it harder for free software to exist and because it does not integrate/cooperate well with free software.